Doesn't really look any uglier than any other camera to me. It's just a camera, as long as it functions well and feels good in the hand and makes good quality images, do the "looks" really matter that much?

I might be a bit old fashioned or something, but I have to admit I care a lot more how the images look, then what the camera looks like ... Maybe that's just me

I care for both. The way the camera handles, the way it works, the IQ, all very important, but after that the way the camera looks also has a bearing on how much I enjoy using it.

I don't like the idea of accessing the main functions via a touch screen. I'd much rather have dials. I can operate dials with my eye still on the viefinder, and I don't like to leave fingerprints on the screen (unavoidable, but keep it to a minimum). Hence I don't like the 'look' of the Samsung.

I am not overly fond of touch screens either.

Now Canon has made very good ones (in the 650D, the 700D, the 100D and the Eos M) where you can use it when you want, but don't have to. Like for browsing through images by swiping, or zooming in and out. And I do like the idea of Panasonic GH3 where you, while looking through the EVF, can move around the focus points using a finger on the (then dark) touch screen.

But all this is about functional design and that is indeed a high priority for me. What I am confused about is the number of people being negative just simply because they find a camera ugly. The aesthetics of a camera is not something I care much about. At all. Better butt ugly and functional then good looking and annoying (that goes for people as well ).

-- hide signature --

-----------------------------------------------------------I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!By the way, film is not dead.It just smell funny